Robust Evidence for $1400 Checks: Relief for Families and Recovery for All Claudia Sahm

JFI Policy Brief - Economic case for $1400 Checks: February 17, 2021 Relief for families & a recovery for all Claudia Sahm Robust evidence for $1400 checks: Relief for families and recovery for all Claudia Sahm Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and widespread economic hardship, a debate is taking place over who should get a $1,400 check and the overall size of the $1.9 trillion Biden relief package, known as the American Rescue Plan. To lower the price tag, Republicans want to lower the income cutoff for a $1,400 check from $75,000 per adult—as was the case in the CARES Act and the December package—to $50,000 per adult. Lowering the income threshold would mean that 71% of households would get a $1,400 check, down from 84% who got a $600 check, according to Kyle Pormeleau at the American Enterprise Institute. That is about 50 million people who would not see their relief topped up to $2,000, as Democratic leadership in Congress and President Biden promised if the Democrats won the Georgia special elections, which they did. This brief provides extensive evidence on how the checks benefit people and help spur an economic recovery for all. Drawing on over a decade of rigorous research, I argue that checks should be in the next relief package and that everyone who received a $600 check should receive a $1,400 check. Executive summary The debate over cash relief in the form of $1,400 checks is about who needs more money and who will spend it. Many of the disagreements hinge on whether the priority now should be relief or stimulus. Some argue that the checks—which go to all but the highest-income households—are poorly targeted and many who will receive a check do not need it. Others worry that people will largely save their checks initially and will only be spent much later when demand is stronger and thus risk overheating of the economy. A recent study by Raj Chetty, John Friedman, and Michael Stepner at Opportunity Insights, using less than a month of spending data, argues, “targeting the next round of stimulus payments toward lower-income households [making under $78,000] would save substantial resources.” Their advice to target the checks more narrowly coincided with a live discussion among policymakers about whether the income cutoff should be lowered from $75,000 per adult, as in prior checks in 2002, to $50,000. Chetty et al.’s findings, though widely circulated, are preliminary and at odds with many peer-reviewed studies over the past decade on how families use their stimulus checks. Moreover, unlike those prior studies, the methods and underlying data that Chetty et al. use have not been vetted. There appear to be flaws in their approach and a wider margin of statistical error than their policy advice implies. My critique of the new Chetty et al. study is based on my prior research, as well as more than a decade studying the effects of fiscal policy at the Federal Reserve and the Council of Economic Advisors. 568 Broadway, Suite 601, Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute New York, NY, 10012 All rights reserved 1 JFI Policy Brief - Economic case for $1400 Checks: February 17, 2021 Relief for families & a recovery for all Claudia Sahm In this brief, I argue—contrary to Chetty et al.—that the $1,400 checks should go to everyone who received a $600 check. Further targeting of the checks by income would miss millions of people currently in need of the extra money and slow our progress toward economic recovery for all. These facts support near-universal checks in the next stimulus package: ● Half of U.S. households lost income from work last year, but less than one fifth received jobless benefits.1 The unemployment insurance system, despite being targeted to those hardest hit, is missing millions whose income declined since the crisis began. The checks help fill that gap. ● Even among many wealthier families, the loss of income can cause financial strains and increase the amount of stimulus checks that families would spend, according to research on household liquidity and savings. ● The government lacks information to target checks to people hardest hit in 2020-21 or those most likely to spend. Available data are insufficient to identify all those falling through the cracks in our safety net due to the pandemic and job loss. ● The checks are already designed to target lower-income households. The top 10% by income never received checks, and the next 10% only a partial one. Further limiting eligibility would lead to millions fewer receiving the $1,400 check than the $600. Many need the money. The analysis below explains my case for checks, and what the research says about how households with different income levels use cash relief. I conclude with guiding principles for evidence-based policy. What households need a relief check? Although nearly half of U.S. households lost income in 2020, many fewer received jobless benefits. This means that jobless benefits targeting the unemployed did not reach all families who lost income from work during the crisis. While the gaps were largest among the lowest income families, many families above the Chetty et al. cutoff of $78,000 in income were affected, too. 1 According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey from January 20 to February 1, 2020, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html#phase3. 568 Broadway, Suite 601, Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute New York, NY, 10012 All rights reserved 2 JFI Policy Brief - Economic case for $1400 Checks: February 17, 2021 Relief for families & a recovery for all Claudia Sahm Economic hardship shows up in other ways too. At the end of last year, 12 million families were $6,000 behind on their rent, mortgage payments, or utilities on average. Food banks across the country have been overwhelmed during the crisis and food insecurity is on the rise. The relief to families and the unemployed in the CARES Act last year was a lifeline and that allowed many families to build a small cushion. A Federal Reserve survey in July 2020 found that 70% of families said they would use cash or its equivalent to pay an unexpected $400 expense—up from 63% before the pandemic. The improvements in economic security were largest among low- and moderate-income families, especially among those receiving jobless benefits. The money from Congress, while it lasted, served many needs of families, not only spending. Researchers at the JPMorgan Chase Institute showed that both spending and savings rose after CARES Act relief began, then fell back after many programs ended this summer. The earlier relief efforts worked but hardship remains, so President Biden’s proposed $1,400 checks and other provisions, especially for the unemployed, are urgently needed. The ongoing crisis demands the $1.9 trillion price tag. Lower income thresholds, as Chetty et al. and some other analysts promote, would create more gaps in coverage. For example, some regions where COVID-19 caused the most hardship would lose out from a lower income cutoff due to their higher costs of living. For example, New York City, the metro area with the highest number of COVID-19 cases and far more racially diverse city than the rest of the country, has a median family income of $83,000. Likewise, in Kahului, Hawaii, an area with double-digit unemployment due to reliance on tourism, the median income of $81,000 is above the lower income threshold for checks. It is imperative that policy attends to such unequal treatment of families, not one politically expedient study. How will relief checks be spent? In addition to mitigating hardship among families, as discussed above, the checks, totalling over $400 billion, will speed an economic recovery for all. Currently, the United States has 10 million fewer jobs than before Covid. That shortfall is larger than anytime in the Great Recession. After the CARES Act with the $1,200 checks began we gained back nearly 10 million jobs. Another large relief package and widespread vaccinations are necessary to close the remaining shortfall. 568 Broadway, Suite 601, Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute New York, NY, 10012 All rights reserved 3 JFI Policy Brief - Economic case for $1400 Checks: February 17, 2021 Relief for families & a recovery for all Claudia Sahm Over a decade of research tells us that one half to two thirds of total dollars in stimulus checks are normally spent within a few months, including the 2020 CARES checks. Families with low and high income spend their checks. More targeting by income, which would reduce the aggregate dollars of the program, would dampen the much-needed boost to the economy. Stimulus checks, along with other relief to families create a positive, self-reinforcing dynamic in the economy. A family who receives a check spends it, then a business owner makes more money and can bring back laid-off employees. Those re-employed workers will spend more money and so on. This chain reaction is referred to as the “fiscal multiplier.” The more money to families the stronger the tailwind for the recovery will be. The new analysis by Chetty, Friedman, and Stepner estimates suggest that higher income families will not spend their checks and thus will not contribute to the economic recovery. To make their case, they estimate how much families have spent so far out of the $600 checks. Specifically, they find that: “Households earning more than $78,000 will spend only $105 of the $1,400 stimulus check they receive...targeting the next round of stimulus payments toward lower-income households would save substantial resources that could be used to support other programs, with minimal impact on economic activity.” Such a strong conclusion requires strong evidence.

Load more